It's also possible that even those same bugs could have been prevented by hiring more experienced programmers. Or using non-static verification tools or testing processes or many other tools in the toolbelt. Static typing is an ideology, almost a religion[1]. Not to say that religions aren't bad. They can keep a whole group of people under control. But I really don't like when people say, "See! A static type would have fixed this issue." and then from there conclude that static typing is a good idea.

[1] This might piss you off, but it's objectively true. Here's how you know. Because static typing could be easily left as an optional choice throughout the code base but no mainstream statically type PL I know of leaves it optional. That's the definition of an ideology: it says this tool/thing/what-have-you is the right thing to employ for all contexts at all times, regardless of what your own judgement might conclude in the moment.